ANSWER: Not only is the New Scofield Bible NOT a King James Bible, it is not even a "Scofield" Bible.

EXPLANATION: The first and most weighty reason why the New Scofield Bible is not a Scofield Bible at all is shamefully simple. Dr. C.I. Scofield did not edit it. Dr. Scofield died in 1921! Barring a very "selective" resurrection, it is impossible for a man who died in 1921 to edit a book in 1967.

The publisher's justification for a new "edition" is that Dr. Scofield, whose reference Bible was first published in 1909 added material and published another edition in 1917. But it is an author's preogative to alter his own works, but that certainly does not give others, more than 45 years after his death, a blank check to make alterations and then sign his name to it!

If we altered the ending of "Macbeth" we would be less than honest to claim that the change met Shakespeare's approval.

Secondly, the editors exercised great liberty in changing attributes of Dr. Scofield's reference work that Dr. Scofield himself felt important enough to include in his work. In the introduction to their doubly dishonest 1967 publication they admit such changes.

New Scofield: "Among the changes and improvements in this edition are: important word changes in the text to help the reader; a modified system of self-pronunciation; revision of many of the introductions to the books of the Bible, including designation of the author, theme, and date; more subheadings; clarification of some footnotes, deletion of others, and the addition of many new notes;: more marginal references; an entirely new chronology; a new index; a concordance especially prepared for this edition; new maps; and more legible type. Some of these features are explained below."

By their own words, they admit to altering Dr. Scofield's text (the King James Bible), introduction of books of the Bible, notes, marginal references, chronology and many other features.

Did Dr. Scofield give his approval to these changes? Not unless one of the nine committee members had the witch of Endor conjure him up as she had Samuel!
In fact, the publisher even admits that the changes made were arbitrary choices of the revision committee.

"Each position taken represents the thinking or conviction of the committee as a group."

What are the results of such shenanigans? One example will suffice. Let us examine the footnote found in Acts 8:12 of the New Scofield Bible concerning baptism.

"Baptism has, since the apostolic age, been practiced by every major group in the Christian church and, in Protestant communions, is recognized as one of two sacraments - the other being the Lord's Supper. Since early in the Church's history three different modes of baptism have been used: aspersion (sprinkling); affusion (pouring); and immersion (dipping)."

Here we see that the nine revisors (NOT Dr. Scofield) believe that there is a difference between the true Christian church and Protestant "communion". Might I ask? When one group is defined as "Protestant" what is the other group called?

Secondly, the nine apostate revisors (NOT Dr. Scofield) claim, without scriptural proof that Christians baptize by pouring and sprinkling as well as immersion.

Remember, the footnote is found in a S-C-O-F-I-E-L-D of 1967. A book which claims on its title page that a dead man (Dr. Scofield) is one of its editors.

What does the footnote for Acts 8:12 in the REAL Scofield Bible of 1917 which had a living Dr. Scofield as its editor say?

Nothing. There IS no such footnote!

That's right! The New "Scofield" bible has a "Scofield" note added after the death of "Scofield" the editor which the REAL Dr. Scofield never approved of and never had in a text anytime in his life time!

I ask you, is this honest?

Proof that the New Scofield Bible isn't a King James Bible is found on almost every page where the margin notes the twin Bible reading as "KJV". The text of the New Scofield Bible is NOT a King James Bible and it is NOT a Scofield Bible.

It might be noted that in recent years the size and shape of the New Scofield Bible has been changed to more resemble the Scofield Reference Bible. Many Christians who desire a true Scofield Reference Bible have purchased a New Scofield Bible by mistake.

I have a copy of the "apostate" New Scofield Bible which is the King James Version. The reason for the revisions is because of the numerous changes in Dispensationalism since Scofields death. Gideon if your intrested in normative Dispensationalism then your only options (with this view) are Scofield, Larkin, and Sperrys Systematic Theology. Your going to have to write off Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord (the two leading dispensationalists since Chafers death) and others as "apostates". I dont know of any dispies that hold to the&nbsp;extinct classic form. All are now&nbsp;'revised' (with the exception of progressives like me.) &nbsp;Ryries "Dispensationalism" (formally titled "Dispensationalism Today") has been since its writing in the 60's THE standard statement of Dispensationalism. Walvoord was on the revision committee for the New Scofield Bible. If your going to use the Old Scofield Bible be aware of the numerous changes made in the system since Scofield (such as the view of two destinys for saved Jews and saved Gentiles - one for new earth the other for new heaven.

I have a copy of the "apostate" New Scofield Bible which is the King James Version. The reason for the revisions is because of the numerous changes in Dispensationalism since Scofields death. Gideon if your intrested in normative Dispensationalism then your only options (with this view) are Scofield, Larkin, and Sperrys Systematic Theology. Your going to have to write off Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord (the two leading dispensationalists since Chafers death) and others as "apostates". I dont know of any dispies that hold to the&nbsp;extinct classic form. All are now&nbsp;'revised' (with the exception of progressives like me.) &nbsp;Ryries "Dispensationalism" (formally titled "Dispensationalism Today") has been since its writing in the 60's THE standard statement of Dispensationalism. Walvoord was on the revision committee for the New Scofield Bible. If your going to use the Old Scofield Bible be aware of the numerous changes made in the system since Scofield (such as the view of two destinys for saved Jews and saved Gentiles - one for new earth the other for new heaven.

Good news for Old Scofield fans...
I recently picked up a "pocket" smaller version of the Scofield Study Bible (at the recommendation of a senior pastor at Calvary Chapel of Prescott who is also an instructor at the Bible College that I attend).

He warned me to avoid the New Scofield notes version...

Having stumbled across this thread, I looked closer at the fineprint in the one that I had. Here's what it says, "The Scofield Study bible was previously published as The Scofield Reference Bible. Except for this change of title, the book remains as it was when Dr. C. I. Scofield finished his task. Not one word in Dr. Scofield's notes has been altered, added, or deleted."

I then looked at Acts 8:12, and there is indeed no notes related to baptism.

So if you look at the copyright page (right after the main title page) you should see that disclaimer/clarification if it is the Old notes Scofield.